Pacific Coast Automobile Ass'n v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Mar 17, 1932 No. Docket No. 8109.Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that in proceedings supplemental to execution, a court lacks the authority to order a third party to pay over funds or property when that party denies the debt or claims an interest in the property. Consequently, the court granted a writ of prohibition to restrain the lower court from holding the petitioner in contempt for failing to comply with such an unauthorized order.

Issues

Whether a court has the authority in proceedings supplemental to execution to order a third party to pay funds to a judgment creditor when the third party denies the debt or claims an interest in the property.
Whether a writ of prohibition is an appropriate remedy to prevent a court from holding a party in contempt for failing to comply with an order issued in excess of its jurisdiction.

Disposition. Alternative writ made permanent.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“No order can be made as to property in the hands of any other person, or claimed to be due from him, to the judgment debtor if such person claims an interest in the property or denies the debt.”

“The obvious purpose of the statute is to secure to all parties interested an opportunity for a judicial determination of their respective rights after a full hearing upon issues regularly joined.”

“From the record before us and the issue as made and agreed upon at the hearing, it is a proper case for the exercise of the extraordinary writ.”

[665]

THE COURT.

This isa petition for a writ of prohibition. The principal contention of respondents seems to be that the record made is insufficient to support the proceeding. To some extent this contention has merit. However, by a somewhat equivocal return to the alternative writ and more expressly at the hearing upon said return, the facts were agreed upon and the record supplemented sufficient to squarely present the issue.

In a certain action brought in the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the City and County of San Francisco, wherein Theodore Hale et al. were plaintiffs and California Highway Indemnity Exchange et al. were defendants, a judgment resulted in favor of plaintiffs for the sum of $3,772.25. Thereafter execution upon said judgment was duly issued and the writ of execution was served upon petitioner herein, Pacific Coast Automobile Association. Answering the said writ of execution, petitioner returned that there was no debt due the judgment debtor, nor any funds in the hands of petitioner belonging to said debtor. Thereafter, pursuant to the provisions of sections 717 and 720 of the Code of Civil Procedure, proceedings supplemental to execution were had, and as a part thereof petitioner, through its secretary^ appeared before the respondent court and Honorable Lile T. Jacks, Judge thereof, and was examined concerning any indebtedness which might exist against it and in favor of the judgment debtor and concerning any property in the possession of petitioner which belonged to or was alleged to have belonged to the judgment debtor.

At the hearing petitioner denied any indebtedness to the judgment debtor and denied possession of any money or property of said debtor. The record disclosed that the California Highway Indemnity Exchange had, at a date prior to process, made an assignment of its assets to the Pacific Coast Insurance Association, and that notice of such assignment had been .regularly given to petitioner and by it accepted, as a result of which petitioner held nothing belonging to the judgment debtor. The respondent court and the judge thereof thereupon attempted to and did determine the validity and effect of the said assignment, to the end that an order was made directing petitioner to

[666]

Pacific Coast Automobile Ass'n v. Superior Court

AI Brief

THE COURT.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief